Cleaning Up Air Pollution May Strengthen Global Warming

Golly, and the left brought us national socialism, communism, and eugenics.... Probably not a good strategy to continue with this.....

 

climate 'scientists' just make it up as they go along (hoping to please their benefactors)

 

Why are you a science denying denialist?

 

We already peaked and are headed back the other direction now.

 

Someone please explain how Climate Change became a political issue ? Why when a scientist says "climate change is happening, here is the scientific proof" does a politician say "noooooo, your wrong", and people side with the politician ?

When 99.9% of science says "climate change is real", then its real.

 

Umm... Ok. I am unaware of ANYONE who doesn't already agree with this. We know this. It is the description of the process that explains the observation that once there was a mile of ice covering NYC and now, there isn't. I mean, it would be pretty obvious if there was still a mile of ice covering NYC, right?

So, the difference you seek, is that when the "science" is then translated into public policy efforts, like CO2 regulation, carbon credit markets, etc that actually are implemented as an effective "scientific" "solution" to the obvious observation that there isn't still a mile of ice covering NYC.

I know, it is truly complicated....

 

What evidence can you present which shows that the global mean temperature has peaked?

 

What has been made up?

 

So how does this conspiracy work? Where are the secret meetings held? Can you provide technical details on how the conspirators faked all of this data?

Also, what's your prediction for the future direction of the global mean temperature?

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL076079/full

Try....

 

E-mail duh? What are you like 80 and stuck in the 20th century.

Hello grandpa!!!

 

It was pushed hard by the media. But, the scientific consensus at the time was still overwhelmingly that warming would continue by about 5-to-1. The other interesting aspect of this is that the media's obsession peaked in the late 70's when academic interest in cooling peaked in the early 70's. It's also important to note that the minority of scientists predicting cooling didn't get the physics wrong. It was their assumptions on the future emissions of aerosols vs greenhouse gases that was wrong. Quite simply...they thought there would be more aerosol emissions and that aerosols would dominate. It's the paradox of climate change. We want to reduce toxic pollution and warming, but we can't do both (not easily anyway). This paradox has been known for decades. And the same thing that tripped up some scientists in the early 70's is an acknowledged problem today. We simply can't effectively predict human behavior. How much aerosols and greenhouse gases will be released in the future? That's a tough nut to crack.

 

Lol...well played

 

sorry but the billionaire globalists like Soros, Tom Steyer, and Warren Buffet do nor notify me of their meetings

as far as global temps I predict they will either get warmer or colder depending on 1001 factors that neither myself or the climatologist whore idiots understand just as they have for millennia

 

Not sure how old you are, but Al Gore made this one of his talking points when he campaigned in 2000. It was never about climate change, which is what "deniers" have been telling "alarmists" has been happening for over 4 billion years. The problem is when those scientists you mentioned, albeit not 99.9% of them, try to tell us that we're the cause of global warming. If we take any responsibility for climate change, it's so small that no measure taken would be enough to make a difference. All it does is wastes tax dollars.

 

As much evidence as you can show that we're the cause of global warming. Sun is in/heading into hibernation. You'll see. At any rate, we've seen, what, a 0.1° rise in ocean temps? In the Jurassic period, it was something like 20° higher. Do you think dinosaurs were fracking and racing around in V8 pickups? I don't. The Earth has been going through warming and cooling periods its whole existence and what we're seeing is natural. And without so much heat from the sun, it'll begin to cool down and within a few years, we'll be back below that 0.1° so you can rest easy. We're already on our way there.

 

Trump is an empty suit walking around....

 

So which scientist told you that ?

 

That's not a prediction. That's just defining the envelop of possibilities.

And those idiots were able to successfully predict:

1. That the lower troposphere would warm.
2. That the higher latitudes would warm faster than the lower latitudes.
3. That the stratosphere would cool.
4. That the Arctic sea ice extents would decline.

and many others. They haven't been perfect predictions. But, they have been useful. Denier predictions have failed miserably. They can't even get the direction of the temperature change correct. So if scientists who have this much success are idiots than what do you call deniers?

 

You have not addressed a single statement I made.

As all climate scientists and charlatans you keep on appealing to emotions of the brainwashed public which has no education and no ability to follow a simple text book http://www.radford.edu/~biol-web/stats/standarderrorcalc.pdf http://politicalforum.com/index.php...year-on-record.517168/page-26#post-1068509777 example.

All useful theories and laws of Natural sciences, all inventions are based on experiment.

There has been not even an attempt of an experiment demonstrating that CO2 absorbs more incoming radiation during the day than it emits during the night.


No other or further argument is needed.

People who make any further argument for or against GW/CC are quite insane.

As to your experiment with wild fires and volcanos there is no reason to think that they cool anything.

Never measured, never calculated.

The same as oil fires in Kuwait https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwaiti_oil_fires , - all appeal to emotions, fake science and inability to follow a simple text book example http://www.radford.edu/~biol-web/stats/standarderrorcalc.pdf http://politicalforum.com/index.php...year-on-record.517168/page-26#post-1068509777 .

You again have no experiment, but just a blind belief.

Experiments result in equations, not emotions.

Why do 100% of climate scientists refuse to calculate, at least to estimate how the mean temperature of weather stations will change if all atmosphere changes to 100% CO2 or 100% aerosol?

Because laws of thermodynamics tell the mean temperature will not change.

CO2 or aerosols are not sources of heat, not heat sinks, they are not producing/consuming mechanical work and there is no way to heat or cool anything without at least one of these 3 things.

As simple as that.

"...for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes." - Newton. Scientific method.

This is the law of nature, science, sanity.

What 99% of scientists and 100% of posters demonstrate is anti-science, insanity and this is what I have been arguing against, with a hope that may be somebody may come to senses.

(As to you questions they are meaningless:

All theories, all laws of natural sciences, all inventions are based on strict definitions.

You are in total denial of that fact.

No poster arguing for or against or in the middle of climate change has been able to give the scientific definition of climate.

I don’t argue emotions and insanity, I appeal to basic rational and basic sanity and still hope there may be some.)

 

I can present an abundance of evidence that shows that the Earth is, in fact, warming. I can also present an abundance of evidence that shows CO2's EM spectrum behavior makes it a greenhouse and that humans are the definitive cause of the concentration increase in the atmosphere.

But, if you think the 0.15C/decade increase in the global mean temperature can be explained entirely by natural mechanisms then please let me know which one is the culprit. And remember, the Sun has been dimming for 60 years now and yet the Earth continues to warm. Why is that? And why does CO2 behave like a greenhouse gas by physical law, laboratory experiment, and confirmed by computer simulation, but it defies the laws of physics for some strange reason on Earth and not on Venus?

Oh, and deniers have been saying the cooling is just around the corner for decades now. And dadgummit the Earth continues to warm.

 

While we can argue of William Connelly's paper. IMHO he intentionally played with the scope of his study to get the results he wanted.

He ran is paper count from 1965-1979 well before and after the scare, essentially guaranteeing him the results he wanted.

How can you trust the study of a guy who is so biased and corrupt that even left wing Wikipedia has banned him multiple times for being a hack. But I digress.

No there wasn't a true consensus in the 70s. The scare didn't last that long and there were many older true scientists who pushed back against the hype. Those people are all dead.

If you look at the people, the scientists who were riding the global cooling hype it's the same people who invented the global warming hype using the same media hype.

Stephen Schneider: The godfather of global warming also the god father of global cooling his 1971 paper in Science set off the scare.

John Holdren: Obama's science advisor and lead science propagandist also lead global cooling propagandist.

Phil Jones: Now boss at CRU. Then dutiful underling of "The Ice Man" Hubert Lamb the scientists who was cited by Cronkite on air in 1972 in one of the initial media bombs of the global cooling scare.

James Hansen: Now head of GISS. Then underling to S. Ichtiaque Rassol. Who's 1971 global cooling paper with Schneider relied almost entirely on Hansens work.

You would be hard pressed to find Warmmongers who were alive during the global cooling scare who weren't knee deep in pushing the scare.

 

You don't want solar panels made here? I thought going green was supposed to create jobs.

 

Ten year "pause in warming"?

 

Tell me when the mid tropical tropopause warms. But then any warming is not possibly AGW. AGW warms top down not bottom up.